* Andrew Miller <ak.mil...@auckland.ac.nz> [2012-05-29 10:52] writes: > On 29/05/12 20:17, Michael Clerx wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I'm glad to see uncertainty being taken into acount in cell models. > > Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the scenario where no assumptions > > are made about the uncertainty and a parameter value is simply given by > > its upper and lower bounds. > > I agree that there needs to be some way to handle that scenario. > However, it might be that in most cases where people do that, a uniform > distribution with upper and lower bounds will suffice - it seems to me > that saying a random variable is distributed uniformly between an upper > and lower bound is an explicit statement that the modeller knows that > the value falls in certain bounds, but has no reason to believe it is > any more likely to fall in one place within those bounds than anywhere else.
A uniform distribution is a huge assumption about a given range; I believe it would be not at all justified to make such an assumption by default. If the user knows that the value is distributed in a uniform linear fashion, they should be able to say that; likewise a uniform log or a normal or an Epanechnikov kernel. But telling them they have to pick, or, worse, assuming you know when they didn't tell you is dangerous. -Lucian _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list email@example.com http://lists.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion